Fencing, Old and New. *As Typified by Angelo and Prévost.

draw it through your hand and shear off a brace of fingers on the way.

The use of the left hand in parrying, as shown in Fig. 2, strikes one as being in itself not altogether impracticable. It is true that in the drawing the action is superfluous, as the man who uses the hand to guard is out of distance and therefore needs no better protection. This, however, is one of the difficulties in the way of illustrating any sport in which the gestures pass through a series of stages. In a drawing you must choose your moment, and you cannot show all the successive evolutions at one glance. Even assuming that the action of the hand gave some slight additional cover, the reasons in favor of discarding its use are quite sufficiently weighty. By bringing forward the left hand and arm you cannot avoid bringing the left side of the body, forward with it and, therefore, even though you succeed in putting by the point with the left hand, you must multiply your movements resuming your former position; and if you fail to ward off the point you enlarge the possible sphere, within which it may find its mark,. by advancing the most vital parts. The act also of thrusting the left hand forward disturbs the balance throwing the body over to the right and detracts from the speed and precision of the lunge.

Another extraordinary idea propounded by Angelo, and shared with him by many of the older masters, is that of an universal calls "le cercle," parry, which he and which is formed with the hand on a level with the shoulder by passing the point through all the lines. This parry is, unfortunately but all too truly, quite as capable of being deceived as the master who frames it, and we no more believe that there is an infallible parry than in the existence of "bottes secrètes," against which all wards are impotent.

Many other differences there are, too many to deal with in these limits, between Angelo and the masters of today, such as the formation and use of the parries, and especially in the matter of counter parries and their combination with simple parries, causing and caused by the varied methods of deceptive attacks. Since his time, too, the riposte and counter-riposte have been brought into more varied use, and the theory of them greatly elaborated. So far, however, as Angelo deals with the riposte, his remarks, though they are brief, are pointed and just. He mentions two kinds, and divides them according as they are delivered while the adversary is on the

lunge or during the time that he is recovering; the former requires to be given with the foot firm and a crisp decided parry, the latter necessitates a quick lunge varying in length with the distance from the opponent. This is simple but accurate, though it is a far cry to the ample discussion of the various kinds of ripostes given in M. Prévost’s work.

Without going further into detail, and speaking in a broad, general sense, the distinction between Angelo and the modern school that appeals to the eye more strikingly than any other, is the rigid simplicity of movement that has taken the place of the extravagant action of former times. This wholesome principle of retrenching superfluous gestures has also in later times been applied by some of the modern masters to the parries, with the view of putting aside such parries as prime and quinte, which are dangerous either by reason of the imperfect cover they provide or of their width and consequent slowness. M. Prévost, the elder, boldly asked what was the good of eight parrics to protect four lines; and for practical work in a serious assault it may readily be admitted that it is wiser to restrict one’s self to the best simple parries supplemented by their counters. Of course, the fewer parries a man uses the more pressing becomes the necessity of varying their application, quick-witted as otherwise a opponent would be enabled to draw too close inferences as to the reception which an attack might be likely to receive. The means have been vastly simplified in modern fencing, but it is in their application that subtleties and elaborations find their place. The end in view is by some stratagem or another to set the adversary going with the object of taking advantage of any unsteadiness or opening on his part, and this generally takes the form of deceiving him by eluding his parries, of shaking his defense by a parry followed by a riposte, or of drawing him on to a lengthened "phrase d’armes," culminating in a counter-riposte.

It is not without a slight touch of regret that one closes Angelo’s fascinating book.